Will the dismissal of the jury in the Vicky Pryce case this week go down in legal history as the jury system's finest hour? Clearly not. Did the events at Southwark crown court, which have led to next week's retrial, help to bolster public confidence in the criminal justice system? It seems improbable. But do they mean that the Pryce case has exposed something fundamentally awry with a trial by jury system that has existed in England, in one form or another, since at least the time when King John put his name to Magna Carta? Don't be daft.

Midway through their failed deliberations, the jury asked the judge 10 by now celebrated questions for clarification. Some of these – like asking what exactly is meant by a reasonable doubt, a phrase which has caused so much legal trouble down the years that judges are now enjoined not to use it – were quite sensible. Others were not. The next day, the case collapsed, with the judge observing that the jury had shown "fundamental deficits of understanding" of a kind which he had not encountered in nearly 30 years in the courts.

Cue a large depositing of ordure from a considerable height on the heads of the Southwark jury and, according to some critics, on the jury system in general. That response is unfair for several reasons, not least because it is more than possible that the 10 questions came, not from 12 equally clueless jury members but, via the foreman, on behalf of maybe just one or two who were struggling to focus on the case in the way the judge had instructed them.

The wider unfairness is that what happened in the Pryce trial is untypical. Hung juries are very rare. They occur in fewer than 1% of crown court cases. And the Pryce case always had the makings of one of this small number, since it was laden with gender issues, which can often split juries, involved the arguing of an archaic defence, which was difficult to understand, and was taking place in the public eye.

We know why hung juries are rare – because jury research tells us so. Contrary to the impression given in an otherwise sensible debate on the issue between Lord Woolf and Lord Macdonald on the Today programme yesterday, there is already plenty of useful research on how juries work. A Ministry of Justice report in 2010 by Professor Cheryl Thomas highlighted areas where improvements are needed, including guidance from judges and misuse of the internet; a follow-up report to the MoJ is due later this year. In other respects, Ms Thomas concluded, the jury system is robust, fair and effective. Juries are mainly conscientious, responsible and unprejudiced. Yes, there are things which can be done to make the system work better. In general, though, it makes no sense to pretend that one unhappy case invalidates a system in which the public has every reason to have continued confidence.